Venice Comments or DASH rating ?! The eminent judge makes a refined interpretation

Dvorani said that he feels very appreciated and proud of this international award and wants to share it with colleagues who have done their best over the years.

Lawyer Ardian Dvorani has a long history in the Justice system in Albania, but a very significant commitment to Justice Reform. He was found in the attack of President Ilir Meta, due to his engagement in the process of building new justice institutions after the justice reform. Meta also filed a lawsuit against Drovan, who says that not only the President but everyone else has the right to act as he pleases and these attacks do not bother him at all.

In “Top Talk” was also discussed about the “battle” between the president and Dvoran and the opinion given by the Venice Commission regarding the deadlock created in the establishment of the Constitutional Court.

Dvorani told “Top Talk” that he does not see the opinion given by the Venice Commission as a victory or a loss, as that opinion should be read in its entirety to see the treatment of issues.

“It is important that the Venice Commission has given a final answer on what is meant by the appointment of judges in the Constitutional Court and this people should take the trouble to read,” said Dvorani.

Dyrnjaja: You lost the battle with the President in Venice but you won the rating in the US. Which is more important to you?

Dvorani: I see neither victory nor defeat in the legal opinion given by the Venice Commission. That opinion should be read in its entirety, it deals with issues comprehensively. Has given their interpretations and explanations and perspective on how the Constitution and the law should be implemented, in the case of procedures for elections and appointments to the Constitutional Court. He addressed the special situation with the candidacies in 2020 and said that exceptionally in this case it was not unreasonable and justifiable for the President to make several choices and hold certain positions. It is important that the Venice Commission has given a final answer to what is meant by the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court and that people should take the trouble to read it.

Venice has given explanations, queues which institution has the authority to proceed. They have given an explanation that in the situation that was created for the first time this constitutional formula was applied and a behavior different from the denomination bodies could be justified. This is a very detailed discussion and I would invite those who are professionals in the field to analyze this opinion. Even in the appointments that were made 3 months ago in the Constitutional Court, both appointing bodies acted normally respecting the constitution, the order was already determined and all the elements that were heavily contested, already three months ago were called normalcy and achievement.

Dyrnjaja: Being far from the conflict of interest in relation to the establishment of the Constitutional Court and the High Court, how do you judge this ongoing process?

Dvorani: The process of filling the vacancy in the Constitutional Court and the High Court took a long time, more than it should. I can not say that there are factors that have delayed it. It is not up to me to analyze the activity of the appointment boards in the previous Justice, but the KED of 2019 was obliged to prepare the entire normative framework, this took its time. And then there was the application for the first time of a quasi-voting to the candidates, a process that takes time. This would also take time for KED. The activity was getting better. Not coincidentally, colleagues proceeded faster, experience showed that schemes were already in place to proceed properly and things could work out. For the High Court, the situation is more complicated because there are candidates who have not yet passed the vetting process, so the entire mortgage list is kept and the HJC fails to vote.

top channel